Sentences with phrase «thus increased emissions»

The more conventional explanation is that as the climate warms there is increased rain in the tropics and thus increased emissions from tropical wetlands which need to have been large enough to counteract a probable increase in the methane sink.

Millstone's closure would thus increase emissions equal to adding nearly 1.5 million cars to the road.

Not exact matches

«Our research team has developed a simple and cost - effective fabrication technique to create solar absorbers that can harness a greater share of the solar spectrum, thus increasing their efficiencies, while also maintaining low emission levels,» said Masdar Institute's Dr. TieJun Zhang, Assistant Professor of Mechanical and Materials Engineering.

Thus, he notes, the increase in emissions seen in recent years likely stems from human sources.

The CO2 minimum forcing estimate of 1.08 W / m2 by 2050 assumes flat emission growth (i.e. no further increases in CO2 emissions), and thus is the absolute minimum (and something I would be willing to bet against!).

In addition, when correlations were constrained to the time period that satellite burned area observations were available from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)(2001 - 2012), and thus where estimates of land - use change carbon emissions were more certain2, correlations between fire weather season length, long fire season affected area and net land carbon fluxes increased substantially to ρ = − 0.797 and ρ = − 0.825, respectively, n = 12, P < 0.01).

Thus, we conclude that 20th - century land - use changes contributed more to forcing observed regional climate change during the summer in the central United States than increasing GHG emissions.

However, international trade has been growing rapidly, thus increasing the role of transportation as a source of global emissions.

While the four - wheel drive does give you more grip and confidence in slippery conditions, a good set of winter tyres offers similar benefits at a much lower price without increasing CO2 emissions — thus saving you money on road tax, too.

Thus about 43 % of the annual FF + cement emissions of roughly 10Gt (C) increase atmospheric CO2 by about 2ppm, to which should be added an increase due to emissions from Land Use Change.

The CO2 minimum forcing estimate of 1.08 W / m2 by 2050 assumes flat emission growth (i.e. no further increases in CO2 emissions), and thus is the absolute minimum (and something I would be willing to bet against!).

Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature.

For a small amount of absorption, the emission upward and downward would be about the same, so if the upward (spectral) flux from below the layer were more than 2 * the (average) blackbody value for the layer temperature (s), the OLR at TOA would be reduced more than the net upward flux at the base of the layer, decreasing CO2 TOA forcing more than CO2 forcing at the base, thus increasing the cooling of the base.

Due to past and present greenhouse gas emissions from predominantly developed countries, the temperatures of our atmosphere and thus many of our sea waters are increasing.

In other words: Increased fertilizer use alone would likely mean that either of those projects would increase greenhouse gas emissions overall and thus make climate change even worse.

A case that assumes significantly higher domestic oil and natural gas resource availability results in lower natural gas prices, thus increasing natural gas's share of generation and lowering power - sector CO2 emissions.

You'll note an acceleration of those temperatures in the late 1970s as greenhouse gas emissions from energy production increased worldwide and clean air laws reduced emissions of pollutants that had a cooling effect on the climate, and thus were masking some of the global warming signal.

For the only proven routes to development — to water and food security, improved health care and education, secure livelihoods — involve expanding access to energy services, and, consequently, a seemingly inevitable increase in fossil fuel use and thus carbon emissions.

Moreover, the «constant» occupies about 2 / 3rd of the yearly increase of CO2 in average, thus temperature is only responsible for 1 / 3rd of the increase, the rest anyway is from the emissions (or one need even more sink).

Thus it doesn't take higher and higher temperatures to maintain the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, it only needs higher and higher emissions.

Thus if my formula holds, there is no conflict at all, and a 0.8 °C cooling during the LIA gives a drop of about 6 ppmv (which is observed in the ice cores, with a 50 years lag), the increase of 1 °C in the period 1850 - current gives ~ 8 ppmv increase, the rest is from the emissions, which nicely fit the curve with an incredible straightforward ratio:

The impact of policies which involve trade - offs between one GHG and another (such as replacing coal with natural gas, which would reduce CO2 but might increase methane emissions) is especially uncertain, since current models of both gases» life - cycles (and thus their relative GWPs) may need to be revised in the future.

Thus the long term increase of CO2 in the atmosphere has little to do with temperature and much to do with the emissions.

That makes that the emissions factor is larger than the increase attributed to temperature... Which shows my point that the mass balance is impossible to close without a sink which is larger than what temperature allegedly causes + a part of the emissions together... Thus nature is a net sink for CO2, no matter what temperature does (within limits of course).

«In the southern hemisphere, the increase in wind power depends on the land - sea thermal gradient, and apparently the stronger emissions scenario (RCP8.5) is needed to make the difference in temperature and thus pressure between land and sea strong enough to amplify the winds.»

Thus either the trend is caused by the emissions or the trend is caused by the temperature increase, or it is a mix of both.

Thus while CO2 and temperature are thightly coupled and CO2 levels in the atmosphere follow the seasonal cooling within a month, the other factor, the emissions independently increases the amounts, pushing the setpoint of the equilibrium to higher levels.

Thus human emissions increase the total CO2 content of the atmosphere, no matter if the emitted molecules are captured in other reservoirs (oceans, biosphere) sooner or later...

Unfortunately, the only proven routes up from poverty involve an expanded use of energy and, consequently, a seemingly inevitable increase in fossil fuel use and thus carbon emissions.

The inclusion of climate — GHG feedbacks due to changes in the natural carbon sinks has the advantage of more directly linking anthropogenic GHG emissions with the ensuing global temperature increase, thus providing a truer indication of the climate sensitivity to human perturbations.

While SO2 emissions may have had some small role in that period, they can't have a role in the current standstill, as the increase of emissions in SE Asia is compensated by the decrease in emissions in the Western world, thus there is hardly any increase in cooling aerosols while CO2 levels are going up at record speed and temperatures are stalled.

In 2016, emissions from electricity produced within California decreased by 19 percent, but two - thirds of that decline came from increased production from the state's hydro - electric dams, due to it being a rainier year, and thus had nothing to do with the state's energy policies, while approximately a third of the decline came from increased solar and wind.

He and 21 young people between the ages of 8 and 19 are currently suing the federal government for promoting «the use of fossil fuels, thus increasing the concentration of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere to unsafe levels and creating the dangerous climate change and ocean acidification that we face today.»

As Knorr did find, there is no sign that the increase in the atmosphere (the «airborne fraction») changed in ratio to the emissions, thus the sink rate didn't change in ratio too.

Thus all three variables: yearly human emissions, increase in the atmosphere and sink capacity increased linearly over time, leading to exponential increases of total emissions, total increase in the atmosphere and total sinks over the whole period.

Thus, there can not be a «pause» or a «stop» in global warming to accompany increased ACO2 emissions — although there certainly could be a «standstill» in the trend of increasing surface temps (which would be consistent with AGW theory).

Thus whatever the natural processes involved, nature only follows the increase rate of the emissions at 50 %, not 100 %.

Thus over time, while the emissions increase, the sinks increase too.

The flawed premise underlying the proposal is that economic growth can not be achieved without significant carbon emission increases; thus «Clear Skies» will not fundamentally alter the U.S. emissions trajectory.

Take into account the likelihood of other countries thus becoming more competitive, picking up business, and hence increasing CO2 emissions.

Thus, the hypothesis of current global warming as a result of increased emission of carbon dioxide (greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere is not true.

They end modestly, noting that «a significant number of high emitters can now be found in emerging countries,» that since Kyoto, «inequalities increased between the bottom of the CO2e emissions pyramid and the middle, and were reduced between the middle and the top,» and that it is thus commendable that «high emitters in China, India or Brazil» have stepped up on the mitigation front.

So help me understand: if Germany produces more CO2 emissions year on year, but EXPORTS the some of the electricity thus generated to other countries, then it gets a «free pass» on the increasing CO2 footprint?

By far the most pronounced increase in electricity consumption and thus CO2 emissions from the lower income groups to higher income groups is in the use of small electronic devices that make living more comfortable for those who can afford it.

if Germany produces more CO2 emissions year on year, but EXPORTS the some of the electricity thus generated to other countries, then it gets a «free pass» on the increasing CO2 footprint?

Thus the choice of Happer for a constant increase rate is his assumption, probably based on the expectation (as is mine) that CO2 emissions in the future will flatten with maturing industrialisation and / or newer energy production techniques.

Both wetland drying and the increased frequency of warm dry summers and associated thunderstorms have led to more large fires in the last ten years than in any decade since record - keeping began in the 1940s.9 In Alaskan tundra, which was too cold and wet to support extensive fires for approximately the last 5,000 years, 105 a single large fire in 2007 released as much carbon to the atmosphere as had been absorbed by the entire circumpolar Arctic tundra during the previous quarter - century.106 Even if climate warming were curtailed by reducing heat - trapping gas (also known as greenhouse gas) emissions (as in the B1 scenario), the annual area burned in Alaska is projected to double by mid-century and to triple by the end of the century, 107 thus fostering increased emissions of heat - trapping gases, higher temperatures, and increased fires.

Diesel engines are generally more fuel - efficient than gasoline engines and thus have lower CO2 emissions, but increase particle emissions.

Except if «the CO2 signal is super imposed on a longer term trend,» and we can't really determine what is causing that longer term trend (and thus can't determine at what point that imposition of the ACO2 signal will be swamped by long term trends), and we have growth in ACO2 emissions, wouldn't we expect that the magnitude of the impact of the ACO2 signal will increase?

Moreover the recent decline of the yearly increments d (CO2) / dt acknowledged by Francey et al (2013)(figure 17 - F) and even by James Hansen who say that the Chinese coal emissions have been immensely beneficial to the plants that are now bigger grow faster and eat more CO2 due to the fertilisation of the air (references in note 19) cast some doubts on those compartment models with many adjustable parameters, models proved to be blatantly wrong by observations as said very politely by Wang et al.: (Xuhui Wang et al: A two-fold increase of carbon cycle sensitivity to tropical temperature variations, Nature, 2014) «Thus, the problems present models have in reproducing the observed response of the carbon cycle to climate variability on interannual timescales may call into question their ability to predict the future evolution of the carbon cycle and its feedbacks to climate»